Bo, Marsha, Krimel, and all causation theorists --
Most people agree that experiential reality is a dualism. Mind and matter,
form and substance, subject and object, awareness and being, are some of the
ways it has been defined. Philosophers have traditionally sought to reduce
this duality to a monism, as in Pantheism, First Cause, the Overman, and
Oneness. Their reasoning is obvious: Duality is not primary but connotes a
division (of something) into two parts or phases. The challenge has been to
determine precisely what that primary "something" is.
Now along comes Robert Pirsig who proposes a solution to the challenge.
"Substance is a subspecies of value," he argues; "Between the subject and
the object lies the value. ...When you reverse the containment process and
define substance in terms of value the mystery disappears: The world of
objects and the world of values is unified." He defines the primary source
as Value and calls it "Dynamic Quality", thereby supposedly eliminating the
paradox of subject/object duality. Pirsig's theory is the foundation of an
ontology he calls "The Metaphysics of Quality". Instead of
cause-and-effect, the MoQ would have us believe that "particles 'prefer' to
do what they do." (Particles "value" other particles, don't you see?)
Pretty neat, huh? Except that there are two fallacies in Pirsig's thesis.
The first is that what he calls "static quality" is not static but an
evolving system of "conflicting patterns of values." And the fundamental
source of these patterns is left undefined except for the name "Dynamic
Quality" which denotes change and movement where none is called for. I
won't harp on this anomaly, as it is mainly a semantic malapropism.
The second fallacy is more critical, however, because it defies common
understanding as well as what we know about value. Value is the measure of
a thing's relative worth or significance. Since, as Protagoras observed,
"man is the measure of all things", unless the value we're talking about is
quantitative and can be measured on a scale or by objective analysis, it has
to be "realized" by a value-sensible agent, which is to say, a human being.
This rules out "value preferences" made by atoms and other inert objects.
It also repudiates value as the "primary "cause", inasmuch as man was not
present when the universe was created.
Now, it's quite possible that Pirsig had something else in mind than
aesthetic or sensible value. If so, he doesn't define it. Instead, he
defines objects as "inorganic and biological values" and subjects as "social
and intellectual values". And he doesn't tell us what creates value or
where it comes from. The bottom line is that we are left with an uncaused
source that cannot exist independently of man's sensibility. This has led
to continuing confusion and speculation concerning fundamental reality. To
wit...
On 1/19 Marsha said:
Entities exist by convention and are best represented as patterns,
ever-changing, interrelated, mutually dependent static patterns of value.
Bo said:
The point is that SOM does NOT recognize anything before subjects
and objects. THAT was James' and Pirsig's revolutionary insight.
[snip]
James suggested a metaphysics of a dynamic something ahead of
static subjects and objects, Phaedrus (of ZAMM) did the same but
called the first part Quality, the second (S & O) part he called
"intellectual Quality" (the first MOQ's only level).
Krimel quoted Lao Tsu:
"Spirit and matter are both one in their origin, yet
different in appearance. This unity is a mystery -- truly the
mystery of all mysteries, the gate to all spirituality."
Clearly neither "convention" nor "intellect" can be the source of existence,
since they presuppose the existence of man, in the same way that value does.
Lao-Tsu's "one in origin" is the missing link in the MoQ. My own thought,
as most of you know, is that Pirsig is to be commended for focusing on
Value -- as an SOM phenomenon. But whatever role value plays in existence
comes from the sensible subject, not the inanimate world of objective
experience. We realize value by conjuring up this universe of
differentiated being and responding to its finite components positively or
negatively, according to our unique value-sensibilities.
I have no argument with Pirsig that Value is REAL. But its reality points
to the ultimate source of all difference and contrariety -- Absolute
Essence. Without this primary source you have neither existence nor a
proper ontological foundation for philosophy.
Respectfully submitted,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
